Blog

Fresno Bee — Support federal shield law adoption

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech, or of the press ..." This simple passage in the Bill of Rights allows for citizen oversight of our government and holds our elected and appointed representatives accountable through the watchdog efforts of our nation's news media.

The Fresno Bee
August 29, 2010

Doing so will ensure more government transparency.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging freedom of speech, or of the press ..." This simple passage in the Bill of Rights allows for citizen oversight of our government and holds our elected and appointed representatives accountable through the watchdog efforts of our nation's news media.

What the First Amendment doesn't provide, however, is protection from prosecutors or judges -- who might threaten journalists with prosecution or incarceration -- when it comes to divulging sources or materials.

Fortunately, California has a provision in our state constitution known as the "Shield Law," protecting journalists from such threats.

A bill in Congress would create the same safeguards on a national level.

The Free Flow of Information Act, approved by the U.S. House of Representatives last year, establishes a shield law for journalists in all 50 states. The bill is expected to go to the Senate for approval in the near future.

We strongly urge all senators to approve this bill and President Obama to then sign it into law.

Unlike the California Shield Law, which was adopted in the 19th century, the federal bill widens the definition of a journalist to include not only those who work for print publications -- such as this newspaper -- but for broadcast and electronic media outlets as well.

The broader definition is one element that creates significant disruption within the government. Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced an amendment -- which was eventually rejected -- that would more tightly define a journalist, which would have excluded student journalists, amateur bloggers and freelance journalists working without a contract.

While more traditional, large-scale media continue to serve their respective communities, the reach of micro-media outlets continues to develop. Thus, we believe that federal protections for journalists should include all those engaged in the effort to publish information vital to their audiences, rather than providing exclusive privileges to only a select few.

A law protecting journalists might conjure big-city images of the Watergate coverage published in the Washington Post by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Or of the San Francisco Chronicle reporters subpoenaed for their sources regarding the BALCO steroid investigation.

But it also applies to journalists like Tim Crews, editor and publisher of the Sacramento Valley Mirror, a 2,000-circulation weekly newspaper in northern California.

In 2000 Crews was jailed for five days after refusing to name his source in a story about a former California Highway Patrol officer charged with stealing a gun.

Over the years, Crews has received threats, had advertising pulled from the paper and even saw his dog die in 2004 -- allegedly from poisoned meat left by a sex offender named in the paper -- all for consistently and courageously asking questions and pulling back the veil of secrecy from local government.

By protecting journalists and sources from government intimidation, prosecution and incarceration, passage of the Free Flow of Information Act will further protect the rights established in the First Amendment and ensure transparency in government at all levels.

These protections should be the law of the land -- all of it, not just of individual states.